Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Discuss any topics related to metaphysics (the philosophical study of the principles of reality) or epistemology (the philosophical study of knowledge) in this forum.
Post Reply
Peter Holmes
Posts: 562
Joined: July 19th, 2017, 8:20 am

Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Post by Peter Holmes »

Belindi wrote: June 10th, 2022, 3:10 am
Peter Holmes wrote: June 10th, 2022, 12:48 am If we examine a brain, here are some of the things we won't find: perceptions, thoughts, ideas, concepts, feelings, intentions, reasoning, the will, judgements, opinions, and a mind. So why should we be surprised that we can't find what we call consciousness?

To put it another way. How could a non-physical cause have a physical effect? How could a physical effect be evidence for a non-physical cause? What is the causal mechanism?

A causal explanation works only if there is evidence for the cause, and for how it caused the effect. The absence of evidence may not mean a claim is false. But it does mean that to believe the claim is true is irrational.

The appeal to a non-physical thing or cause is an appeal to magic, which is a childish superstition.
Peter's focus on scepticism is correct. Nonetheless we all know 'minds' at first hand, from our separate privileged perspectives as subjects of 'minding'. We may know nothing whatsoever about the anatomy and physiology of brains but know without a doubt that something is happening that is nothing to do with moving a muscle, breathing, or walking around.

It's sometimes clinically useful to attribute a cause of symptoms to 'mind' : it's sometimes clinically useful to attribute a cause of symptoms to brain or body-proper. Therefore for practical purposes it would be silly to claim 'mind' does not exist, or that 'mind' is identical to brain.

Spinoza used Descartes' sceptical perspective and changed it by rearranging mind and extended matter(such as brain) so that both of those are the case , not causally linked but linked as dual aspects of nature.

As I said, clinically dual aspect is already being done by medical specialists, (psychiatrists who engage with the patient's feelings, beliefs, and memories as a subject of those) and extended -matter doctors (neuroscientists so to speak who administer brain medicines that treat the patient as a brain-body).
I disagree. The 'dual aspect' solution begs the question. We don't know we have 'minds' at first hand. We don't know that 'something is happening that is nothing to do with moving a muscle, breathing, or walking around' - or electrochemical processes in the brain.

What we know is how to use mentalist talk about our selves and our experiences - how to use metaphors such as 'I'm in two minds'.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Post by Belindi »

Peter Holmes wrote: June 10th, 2022, 3:25 am
Belindi wrote: June 10th, 2022, 3:10 am
Peter Holmes wrote: June 10th, 2022, 12:48 am If we examine a brain, here are some of the things we won't find: perceptions, thoughts, ideas, concepts, feelings, intentions, reasoning, the will, judgements, opinions, and a mind. So why should we be surprised that we can't find what we call consciousness?

To put it another way. How could a non-physical cause have a physical effect? How could a physical effect be evidence for a non-physical cause? What is the causal mechanism?

A causal explanation works only if there is evidence for the cause, and for how it caused the effect. The absence of evidence may not mean a claim is false. But it does mean that to believe the claim is true is irrational.

The appeal to a non-physical thing or cause is an appeal to magic, which is a childish superstition.
Peter's focus on scepticism is correct. Nonetheless we all know 'minds' at first hand, from our separate privileged perspectives as subjects of 'minding'. We may know nothing whatsoever about the anatomy and physiology of brains but know without a doubt that something is happening that is nothing to do with moving a muscle, breathing, or walking around.

It's sometimes clinically useful to attribute a cause of symptoms to 'mind' : it's sometimes clinically useful to attribute a cause of symptoms to brain or body-proper. Therefore for practical purposes it would be silly to claim 'mind' does not exist, or that 'mind' is identical to brain.

Spinoza used Descartes' sceptical perspective and changed it by rearranging mind and extended matter(such as brain) so that both of those are the case , not causally linked but linked as dual aspects of nature.

As I said, clinically dual aspect is already being done by medical specialists, (psychiatrists who engage with the patient's feelings, beliefs, and memories as a subject of those) and extended -matter doctors (neuroscientists so to speak who administer brain medicines that treat the patient as a brain-body).
I disagree. The 'dual aspect' solution begs the question. We don't know we have 'minds' at first hand. We don't know that 'something is happening that is nothing to do with moving a muscle, breathing, or walking around' - or electrochemical processes in the brain.

What we know is how to use mentalist talk about our selves and our experiences - how to use metaphors such as 'I'm in two minds'.
Do you deny that experiences such as dreams, and hallucinations, don't happen?
Peter Holmes
Posts: 562
Joined: July 19th, 2017, 8:20 am

Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Post by Peter Holmes »

Belindi wrote: June 10th, 2022, 3:29 am
Peter Holmes wrote: June 10th, 2022, 3:25 am
Belindi wrote: June 10th, 2022, 3:10 am
Peter Holmes wrote: June 10th, 2022, 12:48 am If we examine a brain, here are some of the things we won't find: perceptions, thoughts, ideas, concepts, feelings, intentions, reasoning, the will, judgements, opinions, and a mind. So why should we be surprised that we can't find what we call consciousness?

To put it another way. How could a non-physical cause have a physical effect? How could a physical effect be evidence for a non-physical cause? What is the causal mechanism?

A causal explanation works only if there is evidence for the cause, and for how it caused the effect. The absence of evidence may not mean a claim is false. But it does mean that to believe the claim is true is irrational.

The appeal to a non-physical thing or cause is an appeal to magic, which is a childish superstition.
Peter's focus on scepticism is correct. Nonetheless we all know 'minds' at first hand, from our separate privileged perspectives as subjects of 'minding'. We may know nothing whatsoever about the anatomy and physiology of brains but know without a doubt that something is happening that is nothing to do with moving a muscle, breathing, or walking around.

It's sometimes clinically useful to attribute a cause of symptoms to 'mind' : it's sometimes clinically useful to attribute a cause of symptoms to brain or body-proper. Therefore for practical purposes it would be silly to claim 'mind' does not exist, or that 'mind' is identical to brain.

Spinoza used Descartes' sceptical perspective and changed it by rearranging mind and extended matter(such as brain) so that both of those are the case , not causally linked but linked as dual aspects of nature.

As I said, clinically dual aspect is already being done by medical specialists, (psychiatrists who engage with the patient's feelings, beliefs, and memories as a subject of those) and extended -matter doctors (neuroscientists so to speak who administer brain medicines that treat the patient as a brain-body).
I disagree. The 'dual aspect' solution begs the question. We don't know we have 'minds' at first hand. We don't know that 'something is happening that is nothing to do with moving a muscle, breathing, or walking around' - or electrochemical processes in the brain.

What we know is how to use mentalist talk about our selves and our experiences - how to use metaphors such as 'I'm in two minds'.
Do you deny that experiences such as dreams, and hallucinations, don't happen?
I'm reminded of Wittgenstein's prophylactic question: what gives you the impression I'm denying anything?

Of course we have what we call dreams and hallucinations. And there's absolutely no reason to think they're anything other than the products of brain-activity. Unless, of course, you have evidence for the existence of any non-physical cause.
Belindi
Moderator
Posts: 6105
Joined: September 11th, 2016, 2:11 pm

Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Post by Belindi »

Peter Holmes wrote: June 10th, 2022, 3:35 am
Belindi wrote: June 10th, 2022, 3:29 am
Peter Holmes wrote: June 10th, 2022, 3:25 am
Belindi wrote: June 10th, 2022, 3:10 am

Peter's focus on scepticism is correct. Nonetheless we all know 'minds' at first hand, from our separate privileged perspectives as subjects of 'minding'. We may know nothing whatsoever about the anatomy and physiology of brains but know without a doubt that something is happening that is nothing to do with moving a muscle, breathing, or walking around.

It's sometimes clinically useful to attribute a cause of symptoms to 'mind' : it's sometimes clinically useful to attribute a cause of symptoms to brain or body-proper. Therefore for practical purposes it would be silly to claim 'mind' does not exist, or that 'mind' is identical to brain.

Spinoza used Descartes' sceptical perspective and changed it by rearranging mind and extended matter(such as brain) so that both of those are the case , not causally linked but linked as dual aspects of nature.

As I said, clinically dual aspect is already being done by medical specialists, (psychiatrists who engage with the patient's feelings, beliefs, and memories as a subject of those) and extended -matter doctors (neuroscientists so to speak who administer brain medicines that treat the patient as a brain-body).
I disagree. The 'dual aspect' solution begs the question. We don't know we have 'minds' at first hand. We don't know that 'something is happening that is nothing to do with moving a muscle, breathing, or walking around' - or electrochemical processes in the brain.

What we know is how to use mentalist talk about our selves and our experiences - how to use metaphors such as 'I'm in two minds'.
Do you deny that experiences such as dreams, and hallucinations, don't happen?
I'm reminded of Wittgenstein's prophylactic question: what gives you the impression I'm denying anything?

Of course we have what we call dreams and hallucinations. And there's absolutely no reason to think they're anything other than the products of brain-activity. Unless, of course, you have evidence for the existence of any non-physical cause.
No, I don't believe in ghosts.

Indeed dreams and hallucinations are products of brain activity. Or maybe too the product of brain-altering ingested or inhaled substances. To say dreams and hallucinations are produced by or are caused by brain activity is not the same as saying dreams and hallucinations are not subjective experiences. As experiences, dreams and hallucinations must be facts.

Effects of causes do exist. Each and every event is an effect of a cause.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 562
Joined: July 19th, 2017, 8:20 am

Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Post by Peter Holmes »

Belindi wrote: June 10th, 2022, 4:16 am
Peter Holmes wrote: June 10th, 2022, 3:35 am
Belindi wrote: June 10th, 2022, 3:29 am
Peter Holmes wrote: June 10th, 2022, 3:25 am

I disagree. The 'dual aspect' solution begs the question. We don't know we have 'minds' at first hand. We don't know that 'something is happening that is nothing to do with moving a muscle, breathing, or walking around' - or electrochemical processes in the brain.

What we know is how to use mentalist talk about our selves and our experiences - how to use metaphors such as 'I'm in two minds'.
Do you deny that experiences such as dreams, and hallucinations, don't happen?
I'm reminded of Wittgenstein's prophylactic question: what gives you the impression I'm denying anything?

Of course we have what we call dreams and hallucinations. And there's absolutely no reason to think they're anything other than the products of brain-activity. Unless, of course, you have evidence for the existence of any non-physical cause.
No, I don't believe in ghosts.

Indeed dreams and hallucinations are products of brain activity. Or maybe too the product of brain-altering ingested or inhaled substances. To say dreams and hallucinations are produced by or are caused by brain activity is not the same as saying dreams and hallucinations are not subjective experiences. As experiences, dreams and hallucinations must be facts.

Effects of causes do exist. Each and every event is an effect of a cause.
I think we agree. People have what we call dreams and hallucinations. Fact. Feature of reality.
SteveKlinko
Posts: 710
Joined: November 19th, 2021, 11:43 am

Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Post by SteveKlinko »

Peter Holmes wrote: June 10th, 2022, 12:48 am If we examine a brain, here are some of the things we won't find: perceptions, thoughts, ideas, concepts, feelings, intentions, reasoning, the will, judgements, opinions, and a mind. So why should we be surprised that we can't find what we call consciousness?

To put it another way. How could a non-physical cause have a physical effect? How could a physical effect be evidence for a non-physical cause? What is the causal mechanism?

A causal explanation works only if there is evidence for the cause, and for how it caused the effect. The absence of evidence may not mean a claim is false. But it does mean that to believe the claim is true is irrational.

The appeal to a non-physical thing or cause is an appeal to magic, which is a childish superstition.
This is the problem with the Physicalist mindset. Any new Perspectives are to be squashed by Insulting references to Magic and Superstition. What could be more Superstitious than the unending Belief that Conscious Experience Must be in the Neurons? The Physicalists are Praying for the Revelation which will finally show them how Consciousness is in the Neurons. For the Physicalist, Conscious Experiences like Redness, and the Salty Taste MUST be a function of the Neurons. But for me, it is easy to comprehend that there could be a Conscious Mind that is Connected to the Neurons, and that monitors the Neurons, and that generates the Conscious Experience of Redness when certain Neurons fire as a further stage of the processing. This Connection Perspective is Connectism. It is less easy to try to push that Experience back into the Neurons themselves. There is no known Chain of Logic that can take you from Neurons Firing to the Experience of Redness. That is the Physicalist Perspective. With Connectism all you need to do is figure out the Connection, but with Physicalism you have to create a whole new Physics for the Neurons that shows how they generate the Redness. With Connectism you only need to figure out the Connection mechanism. The Experience of the Redness is not in the Neurons, but in a whole new Conscious Space concept. This is not Magic and this is not Superstition, but this is rather the only Sensible conclusion to come to after a Century of Failure for the Physicalist Perspective. See https://theintermind.com/#ConnectionPerspective
Peter Holmes
Posts: 562
Joined: July 19th, 2017, 8:20 am

Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Post by Peter Holmes »

SteveKlinko wrote: June 10th, 2022, 8:42 am
Peter Holmes wrote: June 10th, 2022, 12:48 am If we examine a brain, here are some of the things we won't find: perceptions, thoughts, ideas, concepts, feelings, intentions, reasoning, the will, judgements, opinions, and a mind. So why should we be surprised that we can't find what we call consciousness?

To put it another way. How could a non-physical cause have a physical effect? How could a physical effect be evidence for a non-physical cause? What is the causal mechanism?

A causal explanation works only if there is evidence for the cause, and for how it caused the effect. The absence of evidence may not mean a claim is false. But it does mean that to believe the claim is true is irrational.

The appeal to a non-physical thing or cause is an appeal to magic, which is a childish superstition.
This is the problem with the Physicalist mindset. Any new Perspectives are to be squashed by Insulting references to Magic and Superstition. What could be more Superstitious than the unending Belief that Conscious Experience Must be in the Neurons? The Physicalists are Praying for the Revelation which will finally show them how Consciousness is in the Neurons. For the Physicalist, Conscious Experiences like Redness, and the Salty Taste MUST be a function of the Neurons. But for me, it is easy to comprehend that there could be a Conscious Mind that is Connected to the Neurons, and that monitors the Neurons, and that generates the Conscious Experience of Redness when certain Neurons fire as a further stage of the processing. This Connection Perspective is Connectism. It is less easy to try to push that Experience back into the Neurons themselves. There is no known Chain of Logic that can take you from Neurons Firing to the Experience of Redness. That is the Physicalist Perspective. With Connectism all you need to do is figure out the Connection, but with Physicalism you have to create a whole new Physics for the Neurons that shows how they generate the Redness. With Connectism you only need to figure out the Connection mechanism. The Experience of the Redness is not in the Neurons, but in a whole new Conscious Space concept. This is not Magic and this is not Superstition, but this is rather the only Sensible conclusion to come to after a Century of Failure for the Physicalist Perspective. See https://theintermind.com/#ConnectionPerspective
Nope. The centuries - or millennia - of failure belong to the claim that there's anything non-physical of any kind: minds, ghosts, goblins or gods. And initial capitalisation of every other word - or inventing 'connectism' - doesn't make the claim any more plausible.

I know it sucks. No one wants to be or seem irrational.
SteveKlinko
Posts: 710
Joined: November 19th, 2021, 11:43 am

Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Post by SteveKlinko »

Peter Holmes wrote: June 10th, 2022, 8:59 am
SteveKlinko wrote: June 10th, 2022, 8:42 am
Peter Holmes wrote: June 10th, 2022, 12:48 am If we examine a brain, here are some of the things we won't find: perceptions, thoughts, ideas, concepts, feelings, intentions, reasoning, the will, judgements, opinions, and a mind. So why should we be surprised that we can't find what we call consciousness?

To put it another way. How could a non-physical cause have a physical effect? How could a physical effect be evidence for a non-physical cause? What is the causal mechanism?

A causal explanation works only if there is evidence for the cause, and for how it caused the effect. The absence of evidence may not mean a claim is false. But it does mean that to believe the claim is true is irrational.

The appeal to a non-physical thing or cause is an appeal to magic, which is a childish superstition.
This is the problem with the Physicalist mindset. Any new Perspectives are to be squashed by Insulting references to Magic and Superstition. What could be more Superstitious than the unending Belief that Conscious Experience Must be in the Neurons? The Physicalists are Praying for the Revelation which will finally show them how Consciousness is in the Neurons. For the Physicalist, Conscious Experiences like Redness, and the Salty Taste MUST be a function of the Neurons. But for me, it is easy to comprehend that there could be a Conscious Mind that is Connected to the Neurons, and that monitors the Neurons, and that generates the Conscious Experience of Redness when certain Neurons fire as a further stage of the processing. This Connection Perspective is Connectism. It is less easy to try to push that Experience back into the Neurons themselves. There is no known Chain of Logic that can take you from Neurons Firing to the Experience of Redness. That is the Physicalist Perspective. With Connectism all you need to do is figure out the Connection, but with Physicalism you have to create a whole new Physics for the Neurons that shows how they generate the Redness. With Connectism you only need to figure out the Connection mechanism. The Experience of the Redness is not in the Neurons, but in a whole new Conscious Space concept. This is not Magic and this is not Superstition, but this is rather the only Sensible conclusion to come to after a Century of Failure for the Physicalist Perspective. See https://theintermind.com/#ConnectionPerspective
Nope. The centuries - or millennia - of failure belong to the claim that there's anything non-physical of any kind: minds, ghosts, goblins or gods. And initial capitalisation of every other word - or inventing 'connectism' - doesn't make the claim any more plausible.

I know it sucks. No one wants to be or seem irrational.
The non Physical is staring you in the face all the time. Consider your own Conscious Visual Experience that floats and is embedded in the front of your face. This Conscious Visual Phenomenon is completely non Physical and it is there for you to Experience. The Conscious Experiences themselves are all non Physical Phenomena in the Manifest Universe. Think about the Experience of Redness, the Standard A Tone, the Salty Taste, the Smell of Bleach, and etc. If you Think more Deeply about you own Conscious Existence and Being you will eventually see the Folly of the Physicalist Dogma. See https://theintermind.com/#ConsciousLightScreen
Peter Holmes
Posts: 562
Joined: July 19th, 2017, 8:20 am

Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Post by Peter Holmes »

SteveKlinko wrote: June 10th, 2022, 9:15 am
Peter Holmes wrote: June 10th, 2022, 8:59 am
SteveKlinko wrote: June 10th, 2022, 8:42 am
Peter Holmes wrote: June 10th, 2022, 12:48 am If we examine a brain, here are some of the things we won't find: perceptions, thoughts, ideas, concepts, feelings, intentions, reasoning, the will, judgements, opinions, and a mind. So why should we be surprised that we can't find what we call consciousness?

To put it another way. How could a non-physical cause have a physical effect? How could a physical effect be evidence for a non-physical cause? What is the causal mechanism?

A causal explanation works only if there is evidence for the cause, and for how it caused the effect. The absence of evidence may not mean a claim is false. But it does mean that to believe the claim is true is irrational.

The appeal to a non-physical thing or cause is an appeal to magic, which is a childish superstition.
This is the problem with the Physicalist mindset. Any new Perspectives are to be squashed by Insulting references to Magic and Superstition. What could be more Superstitious than the unending Belief that Conscious Experience Must be in the Neurons? The Physicalists are Praying for the Revelation which will finally show them how Consciousness is in the Neurons. For the Physicalist, Conscious Experiences like Redness, and the Salty Taste MUST be a function of the Neurons. But for me, it is easy to comprehend that there could be a Conscious Mind that is Connected to the Neurons, and that monitors the Neurons, and that generates the Conscious Experience of Redness when certain Neurons fire as a further stage of the processing. This Connection Perspective is Connectism. It is less easy to try to push that Experience back into the Neurons themselves. There is no known Chain of Logic that can take you from Neurons Firing to the Experience of Redness. That is the Physicalist Perspective. With Connectism all you need to do is figure out the Connection, but with Physicalism you have to create a whole new Physics for the Neurons that shows how they generate the Redness. With Connectism you only need to figure out the Connection mechanism. The Experience of the Redness is not in the Neurons, but in a whole new Conscious Space concept. This is not Magic and this is not Superstition, but this is rather the only Sensible conclusion to come to after a Century of Failure for the Physicalist Perspective. See https://theintermind.com/#ConnectionPerspective
Nope. The centuries - or millennia - of failure belong to the claim that there's anything non-physical of any kind: minds, ghosts, goblins or gods. And initial capitalisation of every other word - or inventing 'connectism' - doesn't make the claim any more plausible.

I know it sucks. No one wants to be or seem irrational.
The non Physical is staring you in the face all the time. Consider your own Conscious Visual Experience that floats and is embedded in the front of your face. This Conscious Visual Phenomenon is completely non Physical and it is there for you to Experience. The Conscious Experiences themselves are all non Physical Phenomena in the Manifest Universe. Think about the Experience of Redness, the Standard A Tone, the Salty Taste, the Smell of Bleach, and etc. If you Think more Deeply about you own Conscious Existence and Being you will eventually see the Folly of the Physicalist Dogma. See https://theintermind.com/#ConsciousLightScreen
Nope. We can observe the synaptic firing that occurs when we sense things, and by electrical or chemical intervention we can produce sensations. There's no evidence of anything non-physical going on. And the burden of proof for a claim is with the claimant. You're stuck with an irrational belief, which you vainly bolster by giving nouns capital letters, as though that makes them important or official or technical.
User avatar
The Beast
Posts: 1403
Joined: July 7th, 2013, 10:32 pm

Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Post by The Beast »

What is inverted qualia (supported by synesthesia)? From the materialistic view of Democritus to the 18th century to the new physicalism of a priori there is a new version of physicalism as an attitude.
SteveKlinko
Posts: 710
Joined: November 19th, 2021, 11:43 am

Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Post by SteveKlinko »

Peter Holmes wrote: June 10th, 2022, 9:26 am
SteveKlinko wrote: June 10th, 2022, 9:15 am
Peter Holmes wrote: June 10th, 2022, 8:59 am
SteveKlinko wrote: June 10th, 2022, 8:42 am
This is the problem with the Physicalist mindset. Any new Perspectives are to be squashed by Insulting references to Magic and Superstition. What could be more Superstitious than the unending Belief that Conscious Experience Must be in the Neurons? The Physicalists are Praying for the Revelation which will finally show them how Consciousness is in the Neurons. For the Physicalist, Conscious Experiences like Redness, and the Salty Taste MUST be a function of the Neurons. But for me, it is easy to comprehend that there could be a Conscious Mind that is Connected to the Neurons, and that monitors the Neurons, and that generates the Conscious Experience of Redness when certain Neurons fire as a further stage of the processing. This Connection Perspective is Connectism. It is less easy to try to push that Experience back into the Neurons themselves. There is no known Chain of Logic that can take you from Neurons Firing to the Experience of Redness. That is the Physicalist Perspective. With Connectism all you need to do is figure out the Connection, but with Physicalism you have to create a whole new Physics for the Neurons that shows how they generate the Redness. With Connectism you only need to figure out the Connection mechanism. The Experience of the Redness is not in the Neurons, but in a whole new Conscious Space concept. This is not Magic and this is not Superstition, but this is rather the only Sensible conclusion to come to after a Century of Failure for the Physicalist Perspective. See https://theintermind.com/#ConnectionPerspective
Nope. The centuries - or millennia - of failure belong to the claim that there's anything non-physical of any kind: minds, ghosts, goblins or gods. And initial capitalisation of every other word - or inventing 'connectism' - doesn't make the claim any more plausible.

I know it sucks. No one wants to be or seem irrational.
The non Physical is staring you in the face all the time. Consider your own Conscious Visual Experience that floats and is embedded in the front of your face. This Conscious Visual Phenomenon is completely non Physical and it is there for you to Experience. The Conscious Experiences themselves are all non Physical Phenomena in the Manifest Universe. Think about the Experience of Redness, the Standard A Tone, the Salty Taste, the Smell of Bleach, and etc. If you Think more Deeply about you own Conscious Existence and Being you will eventually see the Folly of the Physicalist Dogma. See https://theintermind.com/#ConsciousLightScreen
Nope. We can observe the synaptic firing that occurs when we sense things, and by electrical or chemical intervention we can produce sensations. There's no evidence of anything non-physical going on. And the burden of proof for a claim is with the claimant. You're stuck with an irrational belief, which you vainly bolster by giving nouns capital letters, as though that makes them important or official or technical.
What do you think Redness is? What do you think the Standard A Tone is? What do think the Salty Taste is? Etc. But let's keep it simple and just consider the Conscious Experience of Redness. The Redness, as a thing in itself, IS the non Physical Phenomenon. How is Redness in the Neurons or a result of Neural Activity? Redness stands separate from anything you know about Neurons. It Exists and it must be Explained.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 562
Joined: July 19th, 2017, 8:20 am

Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Post by Peter Holmes »

SteveKlinko wrote: June 10th, 2022, 10:29 am
Peter Holmes wrote: June 10th, 2022, 9:26 am
SteveKlinko wrote: June 10th, 2022, 9:15 am
Peter Holmes wrote: June 10th, 2022, 8:59 am

Nope. The centuries - or millennia - of failure belong to the claim that there's anything non-physical of any kind: minds, ghosts, goblins or gods. And initial capitalisation of every other word - or inventing 'connectism' - doesn't make the claim any more plausible.

I know it sucks. No one wants to be or seem irrational.
The non Physical is staring you in the face all the time. Consider your own Conscious Visual Experience that floats and is embedded in the front of your face. This Conscious Visual Phenomenon is completely non Physical and it is there for you to Experience. The Conscious Experiences themselves are all non Physical Phenomena in the Manifest Universe. Think about the Experience of Redness, the Standard A Tone, the Salty Taste, the Smell of Bleach, and etc. If you Think more Deeply about you own Conscious Existence and Being you will eventually see the Folly of the Physicalist Dogma. See https://theintermind.com/#ConsciousLightScreen
Nope. We can observe the synaptic firing that occurs when we sense things, and by electrical or chemical intervention we can produce sensations. There's no evidence of anything non-physical going on. And the burden of proof for a claim is with the claimant. You're stuck with an irrational belief, which you vainly bolster by giving nouns capital letters, as though that makes them important or official or technical.
What do you think Redness is? What do you think the Standard A Tone is? What do think the Salty Taste is? Etc. But let's keep it simple and just consider the Conscious Experience of Redness. The Redness, as a thing in itself, IS the non Physical Phenomenon. How is Redness in the Neurons or a result of Neural Activity? Redness stands separate from anything you know about Neurons. It Exists and it must be Explained.
We've evolved to perceive reflected light of certain frequencies, and we call them colours, such as red. And you've been suckered by the seemingly profound philosophical question: ah, but what and where is redness? We can't find it in the brain, so it must be a non-physical thing.

And the burden of proof for that claim is yours. An argument from ignorance or incredulity won't do.
SteveKlinko
Posts: 710
Joined: November 19th, 2021, 11:43 am

Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Post by SteveKlinko »

Peter Holmes wrote: June 10th, 2022, 10:52 am
SteveKlinko wrote: June 10th, 2022, 10:29 am
Peter Holmes wrote: June 10th, 2022, 9:26 am
SteveKlinko wrote: June 10th, 2022, 9:15 am
The non Physical is staring you in the face all the time. Consider your own Conscious Visual Experience that floats and is embedded in the front of your face. This Conscious Visual Phenomenon is completely non Physical and it is there for you to Experience. The Conscious Experiences themselves are all non Physical Phenomena in the Manifest Universe. Think about the Experience of Redness, the Standard A Tone, the Salty Taste, the Smell of Bleach, and etc. If you Think more Deeply about you own Conscious Existence and Being you will eventually see the Folly of the Physicalist Dogma. See https://theintermind.com/#ConsciousLightScreen
Nope. We can observe the synaptic firing that occurs when we sense things, and by electrical or chemical intervention we can produce sensations. There's no evidence of anything non-physical going on. And the burden of proof for a claim is with the claimant. You're stuck with an irrational belief, which you vainly bolster by giving nouns capital letters, as though that makes them important or official or technical.
What do you think Redness is? What do you think the Standard A Tone is? What do think the Salty Taste is? Etc. But let's keep it simple and just consider the Conscious Experience of Redness. The Redness, as a thing in itself, IS the non Physical Phenomenon. How is Redness in the Neurons or a result of Neural Activity? Redness stands separate from anything you know about Neurons. It Exists and it must be Explained.
We've evolved to perceive reflected light of certain frequencies, and we call them colours, such as red. And you've been suckered by the seemingly profound philosophical question: ah, but what and where is redness? We can't find it in the brain, so it must be a non-physical thing.

And the burden of proof for that claim is yours. An argument from ignorance or incredulity won't do.
What makes you think that the Redness is in fact a product of Neural Activity? Redness seems Categorically different from Neurons and Chemistry and Electrochemical Activity. How do you Logically Explain that the Redness is a Physical process? I know you can't because nobody can. But why would you cling to that Incoherent Belief? You are just expressing a Religious type of Belief in Physicalism. If that is the case we are at an Impasse because it is virtually impossible to change the Mind of a Believer.
Peter Holmes
Posts: 562
Joined: July 19th, 2017, 8:20 am

Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Post by Peter Holmes »

SteveKlinko wrote: June 10th, 2022, 11:10 am
Peter Holmes wrote: June 10th, 2022, 10:52 am
SteveKlinko wrote: June 10th, 2022, 10:29 am
Peter Holmes wrote: June 10th, 2022, 9:26 am
Nope. We can observe the synaptic firing that occurs when we sense things, and by electrical or chemical intervention we can produce sensations. There's no evidence of anything non-physical going on. And the burden of proof for a claim is with the claimant. You're stuck with an irrational belief, which you vainly bolster by giving nouns capital letters, as though that makes them important or official or technical.
What do you think Redness is? What do you think the Standard A Tone is? What do think the Salty Taste is? Etc. But let's keep it simple and just consider the Conscious Experience of Redness. The Redness, as a thing in itself, IS the non Physical Phenomenon. How is Redness in the Neurons or a result of Neural Activity? Redness stands separate from anything you know about Neurons. It Exists and it must be Explained.
We've evolved to perceive reflected light of certain frequencies, and we call them colours, such as red. And you've been suckered by the seemingly profound philosophical question: ah, but what and where is redness? We can't find it in the brain, so it must be a non-physical thing.

And the burden of proof for that claim is yours. An argument from ignorance or incredulity won't do.
What makes you think that the Redness is in fact a product of Neural Activity? Redness seems Categorically different from Neurons and Chemistry and Electrochemical Activity. How do you Logically Explain that the Redness is a Physical process? I know you can't because nobody can. But why would you cling to that Incoherent Belief? You are just expressing a Religious type of Belief in Physicalism. If that is the case we are at an Impasse because it is virtually impossible to change the Mind of a Believer.
You seem confused. Logic deals with language, not reality. Whether redness exists as a non-physical thing has nothing to do with language, and therefore nothing to do with logic.

And you can't shift the burden of proof, much as you want and need to. Either demonstrate the existence of redness as a non-physical thing, or stfu. Please don't waste any more of your/our time with your appeal to ignorance or incredulity.
SteveKlinko
Posts: 710
Joined: November 19th, 2021, 11:43 am

Re: Whatever Consciousness is, it's Not Physical (or reducible to physical).

Post by SteveKlinko »

Peter Holmes wrote: June 10th, 2022, 11:35 am
SteveKlinko wrote: June 10th, 2022, 11:10 am
Peter Holmes wrote: June 10th, 2022, 10:52 am
SteveKlinko wrote: June 10th, 2022, 10:29 am
What do you think Redness is? What do you think the Standard A Tone is? What do think the Salty Taste is? Etc. But let's keep it simple and just consider the Conscious Experience of Redness. The Redness, as a thing in itself, IS the non Physical Phenomenon. How is Redness in the Neurons or a result of Neural Activity? Redness stands separate from anything you know about Neurons. It Exists and it must be Explained.
We've evolved to perceive reflected light of certain frequencies, and we call them colours, such as red. And you've been suckered by the seemingly profound philosophical question: ah, but what and where is redness? We can't find it in the brain, so it must be a non-physical thing.

And the burden of proof for that claim is yours. An argument from ignorance or incredulity won't do.
What makes you think that the Redness is in fact a product of Neural Activity? Redness seems Categorically different from Neurons and Chemistry and Electrochemical Activity. How do you Logically Explain that the Redness is a Physical process? I know you can't because nobody can. But why would you cling to that Incoherent Belief? You are just expressing a Religious type of Belief in Physicalism. If that is the case we are at an Impasse because it is virtually impossible to change the Mind of a Believer.
You seem confused. Logic deals with language, not reality. Whether redness exists as a non-physical thing has nothing to do with language, and therefore nothing to do with logic.

And you can't shift the burden of proof, much as you want and need to. Either demonstrate the existence of redness as a non-physical thing, or stfu. Please don't waste any more of your/our time with your appeal to ignorance or incredulity.
I can Nudge you in the right direction in your Thinking, but it looks like in your case, I cannot make you Think. Bye to You.
Post Reply

Return to “Epistemology and Metaphysics”

2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise

Entanglement - Quantum and Otherwise
by John K Danenbarger
January 2023

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul

Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness

Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023

The Unfakeable Code®

The Unfakeable Code®
by Tony Jeton Selimi
April 2023

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are

The Book: On the Taboo Against Knowing Who You Are
by Alan Watts
May 2023

Killing Abel

Killing Abel
by Michael Tieman
June 2023

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead

Reconfigurement: Reconfiguring Your Life at Any Stage and Planning Ahead
by E. Alan Fleischauer
July 2023

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough

First Survivor: The Impossible Childhood Cancer Breakthrough
by Mark Unger
August 2023

Predictably Irrational

Predictably Irrational
by Dan Ariely
September 2023

Artwords

Artwords
by Beatriz M. Robles
November 2023

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope

Fireproof Happiness: Extinguishing Anxiety & Igniting Hope
by Dr. Randy Ross
December 2023

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes

Beyond the Golden Door: Seeing the American Dream Through an Immigrant's Eyes
by Ali Master
February 2024

2022 Philosophy Books of the Month

Emotional Intelligence At Work

Emotional Intelligence At Work
by Richard M Contino & Penelope J Holt
January 2022

Free Will, Do You Have It?

Free Will, Do You Have It?
by Albertus Kral
February 2022

My Enemy in Vietnam

My Enemy in Vietnam
by Billy Springer
March 2022

2X2 on the Ark

2X2 on the Ark
by Mary J Giuffra, PhD
April 2022

The Maestro Monologue

The Maestro Monologue
by Rob White
May 2022

What Makes America Great

What Makes America Great
by Bob Dowell
June 2022

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!

The Truth Is Beyond Belief!
by Jerry Durr
July 2022

Living in Color

Living in Color
by Mike Murphy
August 2022 (tentative)

The Not So Great American Novel

The Not So Great American Novel
by James E Doucette
September 2022

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches

Mary Jane Whiteley Coggeshall, Hicksite Quaker, Iowa/National Suffragette And Her Speeches
by John N. (Jake) Ferris
October 2022

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All

In It Together: The Beautiful Struggle Uniting Us All
by Eckhart Aurelius Hughes
November 2022

The Smartest Person in the Room: The Root Cause and New Solution for Cybersecurity

The Smartest Person in the Room
by Christian Espinosa
December 2022

2021 Philosophy Books of the Month

The Biblical Clock: The Untold Secrets Linking the Universe and Humanity with God's Plan

The Biblical Clock
by Daniel Friedmann
March 2021

Wilderness Cry: A Scientific and Philosophical Approach to Understanding God and the Universe

Wilderness Cry
by Dr. Hilary L Hunt M.D.
April 2021

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute: Tools To Spark Your Dream And Ignite Your Follow-Through

Fear Not, Dream Big, & Execute
by Jeff Meyer
May 2021

Surviving the Business of Healthcare: Knowledge is Power

Surviving the Business of Healthcare
by Barbara Galutia Regis M.S. PA-C
June 2021

Winning the War on Cancer: The Epic Journey Towards a Natural Cure

Winning the War on Cancer
by Sylvie Beljanski
July 2021

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream

Defining Moments of a Free Man from a Black Stream
by Dr Frank L Douglas
August 2021

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts

If Life Stinks, Get Your Head Outta Your Buts
by Mark L. Wdowiak
September 2021

The Preppers Medical Handbook

The Preppers Medical Handbook
by Dr. William W Forgey M.D.
October 2021

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress: A Practical Guide

Natural Relief for Anxiety and Stress
by Dr. Gustavo Kinrys, MD
November 2021

Dream For Peace: An Ambassador Memoir

Dream For Peace
by Dr. Ghoulem Berrah
December 2021